1

Thanks Joe. We all needed to hear that message and we needed to hear it urgenlty!

2

urgenlty = urgently

Excuse the typo, I was a little excited. God bless you man, you heard the heart of the Father!

3

great post...

4

The challenge is two-fold. How do I maintain fellowship with other believers while acknowledging that there are important theological differences between denominations?

Do I say that the doctine of Papal authority is unimportant? This is critical to both Catholics and non-Catholics. The doctrine of Mary is even more troubling.

Do I say that it is unimportant that infants are baptised to cover original sin?

By now everyone understand the issue. We have very significant differences in belief, which matter deeply to someone. These are ONLY less significant than the diety of Christ, and the efficacy of His blood for my salvation. But while they are less important, they are not unimportant.

5

How do we hold our fellow Christian bloggers accountable? How do we respond to this “talk-radio”-style of debate in which no disagreement on even inessential matters (i.e., should churches be open on Christmas?) can be tolerated?

How about once and for all - no strike that- how about time, and time, and time, and time again- actually call people like Hugh Hewitt- on their hate?

I mean, where do you think you get it from?

6

I argue because I enjoy learning. If both sides are not enjoying the process, perhaps there are more productive pursuits, however I have to wonder why a fellow Christian would spurn friendly discussion.

1 Timothy 4.16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

7

Wait, so when you offer this corrective, are you also a wife beater?

8

IMHO, a return to biblical, as opposed to systematic, theology would help some, at least. For those who don't know the difference, systematic is theology by category, i.e. eschatology, soteriology; whereas, biblical is theology by book/author. These are simple definitions, of course, but they work. I'm not saying do away with systematic, but the foundation of all theology is what's found in the individual books of Scripture. If we can't agree on Luke's theology, how're we ever to agree on pneumatology?

By the way, it's okay to agree to disagree, but if you don't agree with me your wrong!

9

Joe:

Right on. It's worth discussing, since internet discourse all too often degrades into snarkiness, mean-spiritedness, and hostility. We should be better than that, and hopefully this will move at least a couple of people in the right direction.

I think the first set is to check motives - if we're in the discussion to "win", we've already lost. OTOH, if we're genuinely trying to get to the truth, it keeps us in a non-combative mode. Unfortunately, some of us argue for sport (sadly, I'm in this camp too often), rather than as way of seeking the truth. If we're discussing things with someone in that mode and we can't re-frame the argument in a more healthy way, RUN AWAY. IMMEDIATELY.

Next, I think it's helpful to be aware of what an old pastor of mine referred to as "circle mismatch".

To illustrate this concept, let's assume that two people have the same core beliefs (if not, the analogy doesn't work). Then, picture each person's beliefs as a series of concentric circles. In the smallest circle are the beliefs that really aren't open to change - they're the ones that are central to our concept of self. When we discuss these, we're not talking to the other person to get information that could change our mind, but instead are talking with them to change their mind. Some examples of "primary" beliefs could be salvation by grace through faith (for a conservative/evangelical), the need for social justice (for a progressive/liberal christian) or the wrongness of war (for a Quaker), and so on.

The next largest circle (secondary beliefs) include those that are extremely important, but still open to discussion. These might include christians and alcohol, divorce, etc...

Each circle is progressively less important.

But the problems arise when someone draws their circles larger than someone else. The person with the bigger circles will identify a given issue as critical, and it's not that big a deal to the person with the smaller circles. So, Big Circle guy looks ar Small Circle Guy as a spiritual wimp, and Small Circle Guy looks at Big Circle Guy as a dogmatic, legalistic Pharisee.

There's also a related problem - people seldom analyze their beliefs with an eye towards determining how important a given belief really is. So, we have a lot of people who end up making a major fight out of something that (if they took the time to think about it) is really not all that important.

I'm fortunate to attend a church that matches up with my own view of the world. They draw their circles very small, but are extremely clear about what's in them. In other words, they don't make too many things "core values", but they're very clear about what they are and how important they are.

Finally, and problbly most important, it's hard to remember our role in this world. We're not Avengers Holding the Flaming Sword of Truth. Our role is more akin to servants of the King, sent as ambassadors to a fallen world. As such we should always strive to operate with grace and humility.

Unfortunately, winning arguments is so much more FUN...

10

These blogs, to some degree, are "the church before the watching world." They are also the church being read by sometimes weak Christians.
(There are some noteworthy blogs out there, that stay above the intramural fray.)

I would like to see a couple of the more contentious Christian bloggers do a post defining who they think their audience is.

11

Unknown Prof,
Good post. Hate to disagree... so just think of this as furthering the discussion. :) I agree with much of what you say, and we do need to hold fast to certain truths. But try this for the flip side.
I've used the circle analogy in another way. I think too many of us get our security, our hope that we're "okay with God" or assured of heaven, by drawing a circle on the ground and standing in that circle. We feel good and safe because I'm in the circle and you're on the outside. No one on the outside can be right with God, because that would invalidate my dependency on my theology. Now, proving you wrong becomes essential to my own sense of security. In that scenario, what's my motivation for disputing with my neighbor? Is love the supreme motivator?
What should be our true comfort and hope? I believe the mercy of God, first and foremost. Not our ability to figure it out and be 100% correct on every last nuance of theology. That's not to go the extreme and say that no one goes to hell because God is merciful. I think it is necessary to draw those distinctions or circles. But that subtle shift of trusting in God's mercy rather than my ability to get it right enables someone to be more secure in their own beliefs. Then when discussing debatable topics with other Christians, the motivation shifts more toward the good of the other, instead of subconsciously needing to prove the other wrong in order to suppress any fear in one's own mind that you might be wrong about something you've misplaced your trust in. Trust in Jesus, not theology. Be a Christian, not a Calvinist/anti-Calvinist/pre-post-a/dunker-pourer/etc. Draw the circles because they're helpful for understanding and all of us growing in maturity, but don't look to Jesus for security, not at those lines and where you are in relation to them.

12

Aackk!
A major typo. It should say:

but DO look to Jesus for security, not at those lines and where you are in relation to them

13

Joe,
You should come up with something akin to 'know your fallacies' or the ten commandments of understanding your blogging brother. (Sheesh, more rules!)

There are practical steps that can be taken though. Often, in these posts there is so much to read, I certainly don't read another poster's words as carefully and closely as I'd read scripture. I myself have been steamed and thought "how could that guy say that?!? Doesn't he know, blah blah ...?" Then, I start a reply, type a grand response, go back and look at the original post and catch something I missed the first time. "Oh, I guess he wasn't saying that." Then, there are probably times I didn't catch myself and proceeded to put words in the other's mouth. I see other posters doing the same thing. That's 1. Re-re-read a post before responding.
Tip 2: Blog readers posts & e-mail lends itself to misinterpretation because we lack body language. What do they say? XX % of communication is non-verbal? Since we don't have that, sometimes compliments can be misinterpreted as an insult or vice versa. Always give the benefit of the doubt to your fellow debater. Make sure you really know what they are saying. Try not to take offense.
3. Re-read and preview thoroughly your own post before posting. My typo above is exhibit A.

Sorry - far short of 10, but you get the idea. Maybe others can add to the list.

14

Where does it end? When will we stop being "wife beaters" of Christ's bride? And when will we finally heed the exhortation of Titus to, "Avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless."

The answer: When Christ returns. Simple, neat, and true. As long as we're living in these fallen bodies in a fallen world, there will always be quarreling and dissention in the Body. That doesn't mean we can't pray for one another and ask God to grant us grace. We can strive for common ground, but without compromising Scripture. Trying to get along and being firm about doctrine are not mutually exclusive ideas.

15

Hey Joe,

A timely post. Last Friday I wrote something like it about the current "controversy" over whether or not churches should meet on Christmas Sunday.

The discussion has been interesting, and heated at times. Some of the other blogs I've read on it have really been extreme, IMHO!

I think we need to remember Paul in Romans telling us that in matter of opinion (ie. doctrines NOT relating to our salvation)we each are intitled to our opinions and we should not condemn others for disgreeing with us.

Just a thought all you angry bloggers out there!

16

I have a thought on God. No matter how lofty my view of God is, it is woefully inadequate.
I have opinions about "the Calvinist Debate" but I try to keep them to myself. I'm willing to admit that as with the impossibility of having a complete understanding of God, there are some concepts dealing with eternity and coming from outside of time that are probably beyond me too.
Though I think some translations of the Bible are much better than others, I don't worry about it much. I ask myself, "Can the Holy Spirit work with a bad translation?".
Even adult Baptism is basically a part of a Christian's testimony and not part of salvation, the thief on the cross didn't get baptised. While from reading David's different reactions to the deaths of his infant son and his rebellious adult son, I come to the conclusion that God already has this problem covered and there is no need for infant baptisms for original sin, as long as no one tries to extend it to salvation though, I won't worry too much about it.
Biblical inerrancy was a much better topic to discuss than any of the above, which are "hot button" topics. Though you certainly can be saved without beliving the Bible to be inerrant, what you believe about it will have a lot more bearing on your life than most of the things Christians are really contentious about.
How does it relate directly or indirectly to the truth of the gospel seems like it should be the criteria, but where to draw the lines. If it's about who Jesus is, what He has done, the promises of God and the priceless gift He offers, there we must "contend for the faith". On other subjects maybe we should all just consider ourselves the stronger brother who Paul instructs in dealing with a weaker brother in Romans. In case no one wants to go read the instructions let me say that no where does it say grab your Bible and beat him over the head with it till his ducks are in a row according to you.
On unbelievers, remember in Isaiah 1:18 God invites them to come and reason (could be translated argue) with Him and from reading down the page, He seems to think that if you come with a searching heart, and open mind, and a teachable spirit, you will lose the argument and win the Grand Prize.

17

Good post, Joe. Hit me right between the eyes! I love to discuss but all too often find myself growing heated over something trivial in the grand scheme of things.

18

You, Joe, are suffering from sampling bias.

In the same way that someone only reading USENET lo those many years ago would be shocked to find out that the Libertarian vote is trivial in any given election, so you are astounded to find arguments breaking out amongst bloggers.

My working assumption: Blogging is mostly a megaphone for the obsteperous, otherwise why would they bother? It's had its run as a fad (causing no end of odd effects), and now will settle in as just another media pathway. Outside of tehcnical blogging it will strive to hold the same sway (and as much credibility) as talk radio.

19

Anytime people war with one another (and people will war) and no one gets hurt/killed I call it success, Christian or no.

As for the aggitators among us, they are few and we as the church should respond to them like Jesus did to James and John when they demanded fire to be called down on an unbelieving city. The "sons of thunder" was likely not a title of honor.

20

Much like you, Joe, I have a pretty diverse spiritual pedigree: the son of Southern Baptists-turned-Presbyterians (PCUSA) who sent their kids to Catholic and then Episcopal schools, before eventually I married into (and embraced the doctrinal interpretations of) the Church of Christ--a group that knows infighting and disfellowship better than your average bear. We are absolutely tops at reading people right out of the church (or is that "Church?") over everything from infant baptism to instrumental music (ain't neither of 'em in the book of Acts, you'll hear from any old-school C of C pulpit). Thank God that our congregations are autonomous, so it's possible to find a place that takes our traditions and beliefs seriously without being latter-day pharisees of the worst sort. That said, one of our brothers, F. LaGard Smith (the same guys who edited and did the commentary for The Narrated Bible) wrote a great book on fellwoship called "Who is My Brother" which addresses just this issue. He points out that we evangelicals tend to want to fellowship with anyone to our theological right--as conservative as I am or more so is a "real Christian," while more liberal than me is a poseur. He sees the answer in a series of concentric circles, with the outermost being the brotherhood of all mankind as brothers in God's creation, then inside of that all seekers and theists of any sort, followed by monotheists/people of the book, and then those who name the name of Jesus, then the orthodox, and progressing further and further until we find the folks with whom we physically break bread on Sundays. I know that personally I often prefer the Christian fellowship of the genuinely "sold-out" of denominations different from mine over the lukewarm among "my" people. I think that's one reason I love CS Lewis "mere" Christianity so much. Great post. Take care.

21

Joe: Thanks for saying what we all need to hear. The Bible warns us of the frightening power of words. The blogosphere multiplies that power exponentially.

It is a huge challenge, however, to live up to your exhortation. We left behind decades ago the pre-tech days of neighborhood churches and a few dozen friends and neighbors who might hear the things we say. Today, millions of people see and hear the things Christian leaders say and write and do, and the things prominent churches do and don’t do. We same millions who see and hear these things evaluate them via the Internet. We have to have that discussion. There’s no turning back now.

Blogging will transform the modern Church. The same power of the blogosphere that has been used to challenge the lies of presidential candidates and the sloppiness of main-stream journalists is also available to the body of Christ to challenge Christian leaders when they stray into errant teachings and sloppy discipleship. This is a good thing. Power is always better in the hands of many than in the hands of few.

But with power comes responsibility. Blogging gives each of us the power to question people we have never met personally, before dozens, hundreds, perhaps thousands who read our blogs. It is a challenge to remember that those about whom we are blogging may be strangers personally, but nevertheless are real people and often fellow believers. Our responsibility is to keep it Christian.

If our blogs explain all mysteries and all knowledge, but are not written in love, they accomplish nothing.

22

Well said, Terry

23

Elwood:

Your response is an interesting "coincidence". My saturday morning group of boneheads ( a small group self-christened as The Pallbearers Club) is currently working through John Fischer's book, "12 Steps For Recovering Pharisees". It goes at length into the effects of our own self-rightesouness.

Good stuff, and like most of Fischer's stuff, an informative and entertaining read.

24

Healthy discussion should never get into name-calling and mean-spiritedness. I am just concerned that some people see dissent, disagreement, and challenge as essentially wrong. If, in the name of “love,” we just take whatever comes down the pike, then we are in danger. Where would we be if Jesus had not dissented with the Pharisees? Did Paul go too far when he said the false teachers should mutilate themselves? Where would America be had the founding fathers not dissented? Where would we be if Martin Luther had not dissented? I am sure there were people then who thought, “Why don’t they just keep quiet?” “Why can’t we all get along?” Where people have the right to free thought it can get messy. Democracy is messy. But I agree with you, we should still dissent in agreeable fashion and not allow healthy argument to turn into petty bickering and fighting. Thanks for making the point.

25

Joe

A good post, pleading for balance. That's important. And something we all need to heed more, myself included.

It would help a lot if we would take time to read C S Lewis' Mere Christianity and Francis Schaeffer's The Church before the Watching World again. Or, just simply, Jesus on treason against the gospel:

JN 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

I do note however, that there is at least one context where doctrinal fine points [or even blatant heresies] can become important: abusive sects. Often these major on some minor point or other and use it to draw in the naive, alienating them from others who might be able to help then, then they exploit, often leading to a seriously damaged life.

Self-policing is important in that context, or if the state has to step in civil liberties come out the loser, as has happened. Sound basic approaches to Bible SAtudy such as the IVCF-promoted OIA method, help a lot here.

It also helps if we make it a policy to check out both sides of a controversy before joining with a novel group. (The best test for ability to judge for yourself these things is whether you know the Bible sufficiently that as soon as a speaker presents a text and speaks on it, you immediately and automatically recal relevant parallels and other sides of the issue. If you need clarification by example, kindly cf. a sad case in point here.)

Trust these few observations will be helpful.

Grace to all

Gordon

PS I'd like for someone to substantiate how Mr Hewitt is a capital example of a hater: assertion without substantiation is hardly fair. Mumon also needs to correct an error in an earlier thread.

26

Good points, Joe, and I agree.

Only one thing: I think I'd use a different term than "critique." Could we say, "suspicion" or "accusation"? Or how about subsuming this in a critique of "triumphalism"?

The servant of the Lord is to be easy to appeal to, and not given to controversy: see for example this instruction from Paul. I think it's worth pointing out that the "Yes, but..." we find on our lips is pre-empted: Paul is talking precisely about those who have been "captured by Satan to do his will," so it's not a matter of being gentle *until* they cross the line (one thinks of the Arian-slapping St. Nicholas you link to in Outtakes). Rather, we are to be gentle, patient, trying to restore even those who are serving the devil.

OTOH, Paul managed to get off some harsh words under inspiration, and so did Christ Himself--so there seems to be some sense in which some pretty sharp rebuke *can* still be part of that process.

I think the question is the nature of the quarrel, our spirit in entering a discussion, and whether we can truly say we aren't "being lords over God's heritage," which even those ordained as shepherds dare not do.

Cheers,
PGE

27

Well said, Joe. Thanks for drawing attention to this.
An article on Biblical advice for bloggers is here:
http://voiceinthedesert.netfirms.com/keith/archives/2005/02/biblical_advice.html

Blessings

28

Blogsphere squabbling is like gossip. When you gossip you can rag on someone else outside their earshot in a way you never would dream of in person. Of course, the gossip reveals the real nature of your heart ("out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, etc...).

The insidiuos difference is in the blogsphere you can gossip within earshot about someone who makes you seeth with hostility and yet still not do so in person. You remain for all practical intents and purposes anonymous and therefore bearing no accountability or consequences for your comments. You have no reputation to protect, no 'real' relationships to maintain or reconcile, just a free forum for spewing forth venom.

The blogsphere has a powerful way of luring out all such evil dimensions of the heart. Remove sanctions against just laws and it will lead to anarachy. It confirms to me the spot on truth of Jer. 17:9.